JUDGMENT 1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the sales referred to in the petition of the applicant should not be stayed until the disposal of the appeal filed in this Court, upon the applicant giving security to the satisfaction of the Court below. The learned pleader for the applicant states that his application is made under the third paragraph of sec. 546, C. P. C. 2. The opposite party shows cause and relies upon the cases of Gosain Money Puree v. Guru Pershad Singh I. L. R. 11 Cal. 146 (1884) and the case In the matter of the petition of Murad-un-Nissa I. L. R. 15 All. 196 (1893) and argues that an application of this nature should not be made to this Court but to the Court which passed the decree. The pleader for the applicant contends that the terms of the 3rd paragraph of sec. 546 are wide enough to allow an Appellate Court such as this to interfere and to deal with such an application. That may be so but the terms of paragraph 3 of sec. 546 are somewhat vague. They do not distinctly say to which Court the application should be made and which Court is to exercise jurisdiction. But this Court in the case of Gosain Money Puree v. Guru Pershad Singh I. L. R. 11 Cal. 146 (1884) and the Allahabad High Court In the matter of the petition of Murad-un-Nissa I. L. R. 15 All. 196 (1893) have laid down that an application of this nature must be made to the Court which passed the decree and that an Appellate Court has no jurisdiction in such matters. We think that we must follow these rulings; and we accordingly do so and discharge this Rule with costs, two gold mohurs.